‘Puter notes that the Gormogons have recently picked up numerous gay followers (as disclosed in their Twitter handles) over to the Twitter thingy Czar signed us up for. ‘Puter chalks this surge in the Gormogons’ popularity in the gay community not up to his love of musical theater and choral singing, but rather up to ‘Puter’s thoughts on gay marriage.

‘Puter would also like to think the reason our gay followers chose to follow us is because, though they likely disagree with us on many issues, they find us thoughtful and nuanced on the issues, and not afraid of debate. As such, ‘Puter thought it might be worthwhile for him to lay out in slightly more than 140 characters his thoughts on gay marriage, and why ‘Puter does not support it.

1. Gay marriage is not marriage. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, societally sanctioned in Western tradition for thousands of years in order to create the maximal conditions for raising a family, the bedrock of our civilization.

Gay marriage seeks to redefine marriage into something it is not, and never has been: a voluntary union between any two consenting adults for whatever purpose they deem desirable. In and of itself, in a free society, ‘Puter has no beef with consenting adults entering into any contractual or sexual relationship they desire. However, this redefinition damages the institution of marriage, which is already under assault on numerous fronts.

No fault divorce has undermined marriage. Spouses are free to walk away from their marriage with no explanation whatsoever. No fault divorce cheapens the marital contract, permitting people to believe they have an easy out whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, or for no reason whatsoever. It’s easy to say the words “until death do us part” when you know you’ve got an escape hatch whenever you want it. The availability of easy divorce permits people who ought not get married, or at a minimum ought to think longer and harder about it before jumping in, to avoid the difficult up-front conversations about money and fidelity and family. ‘Puter thinks there can be no serious question but that, in toto, no-fault divorce has been a net negative for the nuclear family, as well as for our American society.

Federal and state welfare policies have also contributed to marriage’s poor state of health. Single mothers fare better (read: get more benefits) if they don’t marry the father of their child. The presence of the man in the household leads to less money for the mother, so the man is kicked to the curb. Several generations of kids have “grown up” under these policies, and most of them have not turned out well. Sure there are exceptions, but multi-generational poverty in households without a male role model is a statistical truth. Tilt against the windmill all you want, but the windmill remains, Don.

This is not a direct comparison between gay marriage and either welfare or divorce. It is simply to note that where the traditional family has been undermined, negative consequences abound. It is in this context that ‘Puter thinks gay marriage is bad idea. Tinkering with traditional marriage has not worked well in the past, nothing leads ‘Puter to think it’s going to end well here, and proponents of gay marriage have, to the best of ‘Puter’s knowledge, ignored the issue entirely.

2. Gays can receive much of what they (in many cases rightly) desire through legislative changes. Laws can be changed to provide equivalent tax treatment, inheritance rights, adoptive rights, visitation rights, etc. Much of the above can be accomplished now through contract, but the process is expensive and requires attorney assistance. ‘Puter is not convinced that ease of benefit acquisition is a compelling argument mandating change.

3. Gay marriage has for the most part been imposed on society by courts. Judgeships are in many cases (and in all federal cases) unelected positions.

4. Gay marriage is not a Constitutional right, nor is it a right derived from natural law. It may be good policy, fair and just, but it is not Constitutional in origin. There is nothing — nothing — in the Constitution regarding marriage, of any stripe. To claim otherwise is horse hockey. Sure, we can always create a legal rationale out of thin air (“emanations from the penumbra” anyone?), but having a society-changing policy crammed down from on high is not the way to go about it.

Further, if we resort to natural law, gay marriage isn’t in the cards at all. As ‘Puter stated earlier, marriage was created to protect and to foster the best way we know to raise children, children being our future and all. Gays and lesbians, left on their own, cannot procreate. Therefore, there is not rational basis under natural law to prefer or to protect a gay union. Again, it may not be pleasant to hear, but the logic is irrefutable. If the union you propose can’t produce offspring, or creates instability in the raising of offspring (polygamy), it’s not going to pass ‘Puter’s natural law test.

5. ‘Puter’s certain he’ll hear that his Roman Catholic faith is hateful, and causes him to take this human rights denying position.

The Roman Catholic Church does not hate gays. It is, and will remain, staunchly against gay marriage. However, it expressly notes in its Catechism that Catholics are called to treat gays with respect and with dignity. ‘Puter tries to live up to his faith’s mandate and to treat all people as creations of God.

Catechism § 2358 expressly instructs Catholics as follows: “[Homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

So, don’t even write to ‘Puter claiming his Church hates gays. It’s not true. Heck, it’s even in our official Secret Catholic Rules (That Are Actually Publicly Available) Handbook. Look it up.

6. Gay marriage proponents have done a uniquely shitty job of advocating their position. ‘Puter’s been called a bigot and hater more times than he cares to recount. He usually calmly responds that emotion is not argument, and he’s more than happy to listen to any rational basis for the proponent’s position. Usually, ‘Puter hears the litany of “human rights” and “it’s not fair.”

Compare and contrast gay marriage advocates’ actions in California on Proposition 8 with New York’s gay marriage legislation proponents. California was treated to angry gays screaming at opponents, calling them bigots (that’s one of the nicer things opponents were called) and threatening the livelihoods of others in a hateful display of malice.

Whereas New Yorkers had a campaign where advocates presented gay marriage as a natural progression in the recognition of rights of neighbors, friends and family members. ‘Puter disagrees with this characterization of gay marriage, but for the most part, no one cast aspersions on opponents of gay marriage, despite the heated nature of the issue.

If ‘Puter were offering advice to gay marriage proponents in other jurisdictions, he’d advise them to study carefully New York’s campaign. Also, he’d advise advocates to get together a compelling rationale for why gay marriage is (1) necessary and (2) not harmful in the future (see, infra).

Changing the definition of marriage to accommodate something it never has before (in this case, homosexual unions) should be difficult. It should not be undertaken lightly. It should occur after lengthy societal debate on the issues, and not be imposed by unelected jurists. If gay marriage is to be permitted, it must be done either through referendum, or preferably through legislation, as occurred in ‘Puter’s New York. It is the only way in which gay marriage will achieve legitimacy among most Americans.

7. Gay marriage proponents should have a heavy burden in changing marriage’s definition. When one is trying to change 2,000 years of Western civilization in one fell swoop, you need to explain not only why it benefits us in the present, but you also have a grave duty to show that it will not harm us in the future, as the aforementioned no-fault divorce and fatherhood-killing welfare programs have. ‘Puter thinks conservatives have done a poor job of holding proponents to their burden. ‘Puter further thinks proponents have not come anywhere near meeting their burden of proof.

In conclusion, ‘Puter’s lived in a jurisdiction which permits gay marriage for a while now. New York imposed gay marriage in the correct manner: it was enacted, not the creation of judges. ‘Puter firmly believes this led to far less rancor in gay marriage’s implementation. Sure, ‘Puter’s position lost, but it lost in a fair fight, with no cheating. It always sucks to lose, but it sucks a whole lot more when the result is unfairly gotten.

Gay marriage has not personally affected him. It has not led to an immediate societal collapse as some of gay marriage’s more hysterical opponents claimed would occur.

However, ‘Puter cannot shake the feeling that redefining marriage to mean whatever a vocal minority of people think it should mean at a given time is a bad precedent with far-ranging (and probably negative) unintended consequences.

And that, along with a whole bunch of things that didn’t make the cut for this post, is why ‘Puter is against gay marriage.

'Puter

Always right, unless he isn’t, the infallible Ghettoputer F. X. Gormogons claims to be an in-law of the Volgi, although no one really believes this.

’Puter carefully follows economic and financial trends, legal affairs, and serves as the Gormogons’ financial and legal advisor. He successfully defended us against a lawsuit from a liquor distributor worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid deliveries of bootleg shandies.

The Geep has an IQ so high it is untestable and attempts to measure it have resulted in dangerously unstable results as well as injuries to researchers. Coincidentally, he publishes intelligence tests as a side gig.

His sarcasm is so highly developed it borders on the psychic, and he is often able to insult a person even before meeting them. ’Puter enjoys hunting small game with 000 slugs and punt guns, correcting homilies in real time at Mass, and undermining unions. ’Puter likes to wear a hockey mask and carry an axe into public campgrounds, where he bursts into people’s tents and screams. As you might expect, he has been shot several times but remains completely undeterred.

He assures us that his obsessive fawning over news stories involving women teachers sleeping with young students is not Freudian in any way, although he admits something similar once happened to him. Uniquely, ’Puter is unable to speak, read, or write Russian, but he is able to sing it fluently.

Geep joined the order in the mid-1980s. He arrived at the Castle door with dozens of steamer trunks and an inarticulate hissing creature of astonishingly low intelligence he calls “Sleestak.” Ghettoputer appears to make his wishes known to Sleestak, although no one is sure whether this is the result of complex sign language, expert body posture reading, or simply beating Sleestak with a rubber mallet.

‘Puter suggests the Czar suck it.